Cano Martin Pena Draft Feasibility Report and EIS Final ......Final Independent External Peer Review Report for the Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement for

December 12, 2013

Final Independent External Peer Review Report Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement for the Caño Martín Peña Ecosystem Restoration Project, San Juan, Puerto Rico

Prepared by Battelle Memorial Institute

Prepared for Corporación del Proyecto ENLACE del Caño Martín Peña 1957 Ponce de Leon Avenue Santurce San Juan, PR 00940 ENLACE Professional Services Contract No. 2014-000015

CMP IEPR Final IEPR Report


Final Independent External Peer Review Report

of the

Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement for the Caño Martín Peña Ecosystem Restoration Project,

San Juan, Puerto Rico

Battelle Memorial Institute 505 King Avenue

Columbus, OH 43201

Prepared for

Corporación del Proyecto ENLACE del Caño Martín Peña 1957 Ponce de Leon Avenue

Santurce San Juan, PR 00940

ENLACE Professional Services Contract No. 2014-000015

December 12, 2013


This page is intentionally left blank.


December 12, 2013 i

Final Independent External Peer Review Report for the

Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement for the Caño Martín Peña Ecosystem Restoration Project,


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Project Background and Purpose

The Caño Martín Peña (CMP) is a tidal channel 3.75 miles long in metropolitan San Juan, Puerto

Rico. It is part of the San Juan Bay Estuary (SJBE), the only tropical estuary included in the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) National Estuary Program (NEP). The SJBE’s

watershed is heavily urbanized and covers 97 square miles. Due to years of encroachment and

fill of the mangrove swamps along the CMP, it no longer serves as a functional connection

between San Juan Bay and San José Lagoon. Sedimentation rates within the CMP are nearly two

orders of magnitude higher than in other parts of the SJBE. Open waters in areas closer to the

San José Lagoon have been lost, as the area has started transitioning into a wetland.

Significant areas of these communities lack sewer systems. Raw sewage discharges from eight

communities north and south of the eastern CMP areas as well as from combined sewer

overflows have led to fecal coliform concentrations of 2,000,000 colonies per 100 mL, when the

regulatory standard is of 200 colonies per 100 mL. Water residence time in the San José and Los

Corozos lagoons is on the order of 17 days, causing strong salinity stratification that has led to

low oxygen or no oxygen levels in the 702 acres of lagoons with depth below 4 to 6 feet,

severely affecting benthic habitats. Water quality and essential fish habitat have also been

affected. The CMP Ecosystem Restoration Project (ERP) will restore tidal connectivity between

the San José Lagoon and the San Juan Bay by removing over 800,000 cubic yards of sediments,

debris, and trash; reducing water residence time; improving water quality; improving essential

fish habitat conditions, and mobility of fish throughout the SJBE; and boosting biodiversity.

Restoring exchange between the different areas of San Juan Bay is expected to help restore

habitat quality. The CH3D-WES hydrodynamic model was used to compute the improvement

(decrease) in residence time within San José Lagoon as a result of increasing the cross sectional

area of the CMP within the planned project area. The output on residence time is combined with

data from a recently developed Benthic Index for San Juan Bay Estuary to develop a statistically

significant relationship between residence time and benthic community health within San José

Lagoon. Ten project alternatives were evaluated for predicted environmental benefits including

an existing condition, modeled as a 33 foot wide by 3 foot deep channel, and channel widths of

75, 100, 125, 150, 175, and 200, dredged to depths of 10 and 15 feet, to remove the existing

garbage and restore previous channel depths.


December 12, 2013 ii

Independent External Peer Review Process

The Corporación del Proyecto ENLACE del Caño Martín Peña (hereinafter: ENLACE) is

conducting an Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) of the Draft Feasibility Report and

Environmental Impact Statement (DFR-EIS) for the Caño Martín Peña Ecosystem Restoration

Project, San Juan, Puerto Rico (hereinafter: CMP-IEPR). Independent, objective peer review is

regarded as a critical element in ensuring the reliability of scientific analyses. Battelle has

experience in establishing and administering peer review panels for the USACE Army Corps of

Engineers (USACE) and was engaged to coordinate the IEPR of the CMP-ERP. As a 501(c)(3)

non-profit science and technology organization, Battelle is independent, is free from conflicts of

interest (COIs), and meets the requirements for an Outside Eligible Organization (OEO) per

guidance described by the USACE (2012). The IEPR was conducted following USACE and

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance described in USACE (2012) and OMB

(2004). This final report describes the IEPR process, describes the panel members and their

selection, and summarizes the Final Panel Comments of the IEPR Panel (the Panel).

Based on the technical content of the CMP-ERP review documents and the overall scope of the

project, Battelle identified candidates for the Panel in the following key technical areas:

economics, wetland and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) impact assessment, civil

engineering, and hydraulic engineering. Four panel members were selected for the IEPR: one

economist, two experts providing wetland and NEPA impact assessment expertise, and one in a

combined role in the disciplines of civil and hydraulic engineering. ENLACE was given the list

of candidate panel members, but Battelle made the final selection of the Panel.

The Panel received an electronic version of the CMP-ERP documents, totaling 1,336 pages,

along with a charge that solicited comments on specific sections of the documents to be

reviewed. ENLACE prepared the charge questions following guidance provided in USACE

(2012) and OMB (2004). Battelle reviewed the charge questions, provided suggested revisions

as necessary, and included two additional charge questions requesting summary information

from the IEPR Panel. The charge questions were included in the draft and final Work Plans.

The ENLACE Project Delivery Team briefed the Panel and Battelle during a kick-off meeting

held via teleconference prior to the start of the review to provide the Panel an opportunity to ask

questions of ENLACE and clarify uncertainties. Other than Battelle-facilitated teleconferences,

there was no direct communication between the Panel and ENLACE during the peer review

process. The Panel produced individual comments in response to the charge questions.

IEPR panel members reviewed the CMP-ERP documents individually. The panel members then

met via teleconference with Battelle to review key technical comments, discuss charge questions

for which there were conflicting responses, and reach agreement on the Final Panel Comments to

be provided to ENLACE. Each Final Panel Comment was documented using a four-part format

consisting of: (1) a comment statement; (2) the basis for the comment; (3) the significance of the

comment (high, medium, or low); and (4) recommendations on how to resolve the comment.

Overall, five Final Panel Comments were identified and documented. Of these, two were

identified as having high significance, and three had medium significance.


December 12, 2013 iii

Results of the Independent External Peer Review

The panel members agreed among one another on their “assessment of the adequacy and

acceptability of the economic, engineering, and environmental methods, models, and analyses

used” (USACE, 2012; p. D-4) in the CMP-ERP review documents. Table ES-1 lists the Final

Panel Comments statements by level of significance. The full text of the Final Panel Comments

is presented in Appendix A of this report. The following summarizes the Panel’s findings.

The CMP IEPR and Model Quality Assurance Review were conducted concurrently and by

separate review panels. The IEPR Panel reviewed the CMP DFR-EIS under the assumption that

all models employed in the study met the required technical quality and usability standards set by

USACE. If the results of the Model Quality Assurance Review indicate that this assumption is

incorrect, then the IEPR Panel’s assessment of the adequacy and acceptability of the economic,

engineering, and environmental methods, models, data, and analyses performed for the CMP-

ERP, as described here, would be compromised. Any significant issues identified by the Model

Quality Assurance Review would need to be resolved to ensure that the accuracy and reliability

of the plan formulation process, cost estimate, and stated benefits of the CMP-ERP are realized.

The Panel agreed that the CMP-ERP review documents and appendices are well-written and

provide a comprehensive description of the ecosystem restoration project. Conclusions are

supported with logical and easy-to-follow supporting information. While the Panel deemed the

report generally had robust documentation, it identified areas where additional documentation

and clarification are warranted.

Wetland and NEPA Impact Assessment –The Panel found the assumptions made for the

environmental analysis and assessment of wetland impacts and benefits are sound. However, the

assumption that water quality improvements resulting from the restoration of tidal connectivity

in the study area may not be accurate since the combined sewer overflows and direct dumping of

raw sewage have the potential to affect recovery of the ecosystem in some locations within the

study area. The importance of project measures, particularly to eliminate raw sewage and

provide storm water treatment, to the study area, as outlined in the adaptive management plan,

cannot be understated. Three of the five primary uncertainties listed in the adaptive management

plan are attributed to the discharge of untreated waste or combined storm water and waste into

the study area. The adaptive management plan rates these three uncertainties as “high” risks and

states that they relate to the main objective of the project. The Panel is concerned that wastewater

loads from combined sewer overflows and direct dumping of raw sewage in the study area has

the potential of inhibiting the recovery of benthic and mangrove habitat, resulting in the

projected restoration outputs not being fully achieved. The Panel believes these issues can be

addressed by documenting the details of known existing programs or projects intended to

eliminate or sufficiently reduce the dumping of raw sewage or combined storm water and sewage

overflow into the CMP, conducting the studies or modeling necessary to better determine the

potential impacts of the discharge of sewage and polluted storm water into the study area, and

coordinating with the appropriate agencies to facilitate the removal, reduction, or remediation of

sewage into the study area.


December 12, 2013 iv

The Panel found the monitoring and adaptive management plans to be largely conceptual and do

not provide specific methodologies to determine the capabilities, limitations, and costs of the

plans. The monitoring information is very general and the methods used to sample these

parameters are not supported by references to the professional literature. The adaptive

management plan lacks supporting documentation for these trigger levels, the performance

standards, and the expected success of proposed management actions. Additionally, no cost

estimates or funding sources are given for the proposed management actions. The Panel believes

this issue can be addressed by providing a more through description and documentation of (1)

the baseline data and the proposed monitoring methods and procedures and the associated costs,

including appropriate citations from professional literature supporting the specific methods

selected for each monitoring element; and (2) proposed adaptive management performance

standards, the related management actions, and cost estimates and funding sources to identify

viable options.

Engineering – The Panel found the preliminary engineering analysis to be comprehensive and

the assumptions made for the engineering analysis to be sound and reasonable. The engineering

analysis uses accepted USACE hydrologic and hydraulic models. The CHED-WES

hydrodynamic model is used to assess flow velocities and water quality (as residence time), and

its model capabilities and limitations are clearly defined. However, the Panel is concerned that

geotechnical engineering data are limited for this stage of the project.

The impacts of channel velocities on scour rates could not be determined due to the limited

geotechnical data and soil analyses, which could affect the estimated construction costs and

selected channel configuration. Uncertainties in the soil analyses and shear stress calculations

could impact the required scour protection, channel configuration, and cost estimate. The Panel

believes this concern can be addressed by performing additional geotechnical analysis to obtain a

higher level of confidence in the scour analysis, revising scour protection requirements for

alternatives based on the results of geotechnical analysis and in consideration of detailed

modeling output, and revising cost estimates for the project alternatives accordingly.

The Panel also found that the decision for eliminating a trapezoidal section early in the screening

process is not supported by data or analyses. A more thorough analysis of the geotechnical

conditions and more detailed cost analysis may identify lower cost channel configuration

alternatives. This issue could be addressed by determining additional costs associated with the

excavation, transport, and disposition of additional sediments associated with a trapezoidal

channel, performing addition geotechnical analysis to determine suitable slopes for a trapezoidal

channel, and analyzing additional costs associated with slope stabilization materials for the

trapezoidal channel, if applicable.

The Panel also noted that an alternative disposal site is not identified in the event that the

contamination of the dredged material is determined to be unacceptable for ocean disposal. It is

not clear whether dredged material can be properly disposed at the selected disposal site, which

risks project delays and potentially additional costs. The Panel believes this can be confirmed by

conducting the sediment fate modeling and bioassays referenced to verify that the dredged

materials from the CMP are suitable for ocean disposal at the Ocean Dredged Material Disposal

Site (ODMDS) site, and considering alternative dredged material disposal sites solutions,


December 12, 2013 v

including cost implications, if the sediment fate modeling and bioassays cannot confirm the

suitability of ocean disposal.

Economics – The economic analysis is thorough and provides sufficient justification for the

Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP). The methods, models, and analysis used in the Cost

Effectiveness and Incremental Cost Analyses (CE/ICA) process are adequate and acceptable.

Existing socioeconomic resources are adequately described and provide support for the without

project conditions. Socioeconomic impacts of the project are discussed and sufficient plans to

address these impacts are provided. Potential socioeconomic impacts of the project will also

need to be monitored and addressed in the future, as discussed in the CMP-ERP review

documents.

Table ES-1. Overview of Five Final Panel Comments Identified by the CMP IEPR Panel

No. Final Panel Comment

Significance – High

1

The assumption that the water quality improvements resulting from the restoration of tidal connectivity in the study area will substantially increase biodiversity and improve the functional value of mangrove habitat throughout the SJBE may not be accurate since the combined sewer overflows and direct dumping of raw sewage have the potential to affect recovery of the ecosystem in some locations within the study area.

2 The impacts of channel velocities on scour rates cannot be determined due to the limited geotechnical data and soil analyses, which could affect the estimated construction costs and selected channel configuration.

Significance – Medium

3 The monitoring and adaptive management plans are largely conceptual and do not provide specific methodologies to determine the capabilities, limitations, and costs of the plans.

4 The decision to eliminate a trapezoidal section early in the screening process is not supported by data or analyses.

5 An alternative disposal site has not been identified in the event that the contamination of the dredged material is determined to be unacceptable for ocean disposal.


December 12, 2013 vi



December 12, 2013 vii

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... i

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1

2. PURPOSE OF THE IEPR ..................................................................................................................... 2

3. METHODS ............................................................................................................................................ 2

3.1 Planning and Schedule ............................................................................................................... 2

3.2 Identification and Selection of IEPR Panel Members ................................................................. 4

3.3 Conduct of the IEPR ................................................................................................................... 7

3.4 Review of Individual Comments .................................................................................................. 8

3.5 IEPR Panel Teleconference ........................................................................................................ 8

36 Preparation of Final Panel Comments ........................................................................................ 9

4. PANEL DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................................... 10

5. SUMMARY OF FINAL PANEL COMMENTS .................................................................................... 18

6. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 21

Appendix A Final Panel Comments for the CMP IEPR

Appendix B Final Charge to the Independent External Peer Review Panel on the CMP-ERP

List of Tables

Table ES-1. Overview of Five Final Panel Comments Identified by the CMP IEPR Panel .............. v

Table 1. CMP IEPR Schedule .......................................................................................................... 3

Table 2. CMP IEPR Panel: Technical Criteria and Areas of Expertise ..................................... 11

Table 3. Overview of Five Final Panel Comments Identified by the CMP IEPR Panel ............ 20


December 12, 2013 viii

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AMP Adaptive Management Plan

ATR Agency Technical Review

AWT Advanced Wastewater Treatment

CAD Contained Aquatic Disposal

CE/ICA Cost Effectiveness and Incremental Cost Analysis

CMP Caño Martín Peña

CSO Combined Sewer Overflows

COI Conflict of Interest

DFR-EIS Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement

DrChecks Design Review and Checking System

DFR Draft Feasibility Report

EC Engineering Circular

ERDC Engineer Research and Development Center

ERP Ecosystem Restoration Project

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

HGM Hydrogeomorphic Model

IBI Indices of Biotic Integrity

IEPR Independent External Peer Review

MP Monitoring Plan

NEP National Estuary Program

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NER National Ecosystem Restoration

NTP Notice to Proceed

ODMDS Ocean Dredge Material Disposal Site

OEO Outside Eligible Organization

OMB Office of Management and Budget

P&G Principles and Guidelines

PI Plasticity Index

SJBE San Juan Bay Estuary

TSP Tentatively Selected Plan

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency


December 12, 2013 1

1. INTRODUCTION




watershed is heavily urbanized and covers 97 square miles. Due to years of encroachment and

fill of the mangrove swamps along the CMP, it no longer serves as a functional connection

between San Juan Bay and San José Lagoon. Sedimentation rates within the CMP are nearly two

orders of magnitude higher than in other parts of the SJBE. Open waters in areas closer to the

San José Lagoon have been lost, as the area has started transitioning into a wetland.

Significant areas of these communities lack sewer systems. Raw sewage discharges from eight

communities north and south of the eastern CMP areas as well as from combined sewer

overflows have led to fecal coliform concentrations of 2,000,000 colonies per 100 mL, when the

regulatory standard is of 200 colonies per 100 mL. Water residence time in the San José and Los

Corozos lagoons is on the order of 17 days, causing strong salinity stratification that has led to

low oxygen or no oxygen levels in the 702 acres of lagoons with depth below 4 to 6 feet,

severely affecting benthic habitats. Water quality and essential fish habitat have also been

affected. The CMP Ecosystem Restoration Project (ERP) will restore tidal connectivity between

the San José Lagoon and the San Juan Bay by removing over 800,000 cubic yards of sediments,

debris, and trash; reducing water residence time; improving water quality; improving essential

fish habitat conditions, and mobility of fish throughout the SJBE; and boosting biodiversity.











The Corporación del Proyecto ENLACE del Caño Martín Peña (hereinafter: ENLACE) is

conducting an Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) of the Draft Feasibility Report and

Environmental Impact Statement (DFR-EIS) for the Caño Martín Peña Ecosystem Restoration

Project, San Juan, Puerto Rico (hereinafter: CMP-IEPR). The work described here documents

the activities of Battelle, which was engaged to coordinate the IEPR of the CMP-ERP. Battelle

followed procedures dexcribed in the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE) Engineer Circular (EC) Civil Works Review (EC 1165-2-214) (USACE, 2012) and

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) bulletin Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer

Review (OMB, 2004). Independent, objective peer review is regarded as a critical element in

ensuring the reliability of scientific analyses.


December 12, 2013 2

This final report details the IEPR process, describes the IEPR panel members and their selection,

and summarizes the Final Panel Comments of the IEPR Panel on the existing environmental,

economic, and engineering analyses contained in the CMP. The full text of the Final Panel

Comments is presented in Appendix A.

2. PURPOSE OF THE IEPR

To ensure that the CMP-ERP documents are supported by the best scientific and technical

information, ENLACE has implemented a peer review process that uses IEPR and Model

Quality Assurance Review to complement the Agency Technical Review (ATR), as described in

USACE (2012).

In general, the purpose of peer review is to strengthen the quality and credibility of the CMP-

ERP decision documents in support of this Civil Works project. IEPR provides an independent

assessment of the economic, engineering, and environmental analysis of the project study. In

particular, the IEPR addresses the technical soundness of the project study’s assumptions,

methods, analyses, and calculations and identifies the need for additional data or analyses to

make a good decision regarding implementation of alternatives and recommendations.

In this case, the IEPR of the CMP-ERP was conducted and managed using contract support from

Battelle, which is an Outside Eligible Organization (OEO) (as defined by EC 1165-2-214).

Battelle, a 501(c)(3) organization under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, has experience

conducting IEPRs for USACE.

3. METHODS

This section describes the method followed in selecting the members for the IEPR Panel (the

Panel) and in planning and conducting the IEPR. The IEPR was conducted following procedures

described by USACE (2012) and in accordance with OMB (2004) guidance. Supplemental

guidance on evaluation for conflicts of interest (COIs) was obtained from the Policy on

Committee Composition and Balance and Conflicts of Interest for Committees Used in the

Development of Reports (The National Academies, 2003).

3.1 Planning and Schedule

After receiving the Notice to Proceed (NTP), Battelle held a kick-off meeting with ENLACE to

review the preliminary/suggested schedule, discuss the IEPR process, and address any questions

regarding the scope (e.g., clarify expertise areas needed for panel members). Any revisions to

the schedule were submitted as part of the final Work Plan. In addition, 36 charge questions were

provided by ENLACE; Battelle reviewed the charge questions, provided suggested revisions as

necessary, and included two additional charge questions requesting summary information from

the IEPR Panel. The charge, included in the draft and final Work Plans, also included general

guidance for the Panel on the conduct of the peer review (provided in Appendix B of this final

report).

Table 1 presents the schedule followed in executing the IEPR. Due dates for milestones and

deliverables are based on the award/effective date of October 8, 2013. The review documents


December 12, 2013 3

were provided by ENLACE on October 10, 2013. Note that the work items listed in Task 9 occur

after the submission of this report. Battelle will enter the five Final Panel Comments developed

by the Panel into USACE’s Design Review and Checking System (DrChecks), a Web-based

software system for documenting and sharing comments on reports and design documents, so

that ENLACE can review and respond to them. ENLACE will provide responses (Evaluator

Responses) to the Final Panel Comments, and the Panel will respond (BackCheck Responses) to

the Evaluator Responses. All ENLACE and Panel responses will be documented by Battelle.

Battelle will provide ENLACE and the Panel a pdf printout of all DrChecks entries, through

comment closure, as a final deliverable and record of the IEPR results.

Table 1. CMP IEPR Schedule

Task Action Due Date

1

Notice to Proceed (NTP) 10/8/2013

Review documents available 10/10/2013

Battelle submits draft Work Plan a 10/17/2013

ENLACE provides comments on draft Work Plan 10/30/2013

*Battelle submits final Work Plan a 11/1/2013

2

Battelle requests input from ENLACE on the conflict of interest (COI) questionnaire

10/9/2013

ENLACE provides comments on COI questionnaire 10/11/2013

Battelle submits list of selected panel members a 10/17/2013

ENLACE confirms the panel members have no COI 10/18/2013

Battelle completes subcontracts for panel members 10/24/2013

3

Battelle convenes kick-off meeting with ENLACE 10/10/2013

Battelle sends review documents to panel members 10/28/2013

Battelle convenes kick-off meeting with panel members 10/28/2013

Battelle convenes kick-off meeting with ENLACE and IEPR panel members 10/31/2013

7 (IEPR)

Battelle provides ENLACE with IEPR Panel Mid-Review clarifying questions 11/6/2013

Battelle convenes mid-review teleconference for the IEPR Panel to ask clarifying questions of ENLACE

11/8/2013

IEPR panel members complete their individual reviews 11/14/2013

Battelle provides panel members with merged individual comments talking points for Panel Review Teleconference

11/18/2013

Battelle convenes Panel Review Teleconference 11/19/2013

Battelle provides Final Panel Comment templates and instructions to panel members

11/20/2013

Panel members provide draft Final Panel Comments to Battelle 11/26/2013


December 12, 2013 4

Table 1. CMP IEPR Schedule (continued)


7 (IEPR)

Battelle provides feedback to panel members on draft Final Panel Comments; panel members revise Final Panel Comments

11/27-12/5/2013

Battelle finalizes Final Panel Comments 12/6/2013

8 (IEPR)

Battelle provides Final IEPR Report to panel members for review 12/9/2013

Panel members provide comments on Final IEPR Report 12/10/2013

Battelle submits Final IEPR Report to ENLACE a 12/12/2013

9b

(IEPR)

Battelle convenes teleconference with ENLACE to review the Post-Final Panel Comment Response Process

12/13/2013

Battelle convenes teleconference with Panel to review the Post-Final Panel Comment Response Process

12/16/2013

Battelle inputs Final Panel Comments into DrChecks; Battelle provides the panel members the draft Evaluator Responses

12/16/2013

ENLACE provides draft Evaluator Responses to Battelle 12/23/2013

Battelle provides the panel members the draft Evaluator Responses and clarifying questions

1/3/2014

Panel members provide Battelle with draft BackCheck Responses 1/9/2014

Battelle convenes teleconference with panel members to discuss draft BackCheck Responses

1/10/2014

Battelle convenes Comment-Response Teleconference with panel members and ENLACE

1/13/2014

ENLACE inputs final Evaluator Responses into DrChecks 1/17/2014

Battelle provides final Evaluator Responses to panel members 1/23/2014

Panel members provide Battelle with final BackCheck Responses 1/28/2014

Battelle inputs final BackCheck Responses into DrChecks 1/30/2014

Battelle submits pdf printout of DrChecks project file to ENLACE a 1/31/2014

a Deliverable.

b Task 9 occurs after the submission of this report.

Note: Tasks 4 through 6 are part of the concurrent Model Quality Assurance Review and are not included in this table.

3.2 Identification and Selection of IEPR Panel Members

The candidates for the Panel were evaluated based on their technical expertise in the following

key areas: economics, wetland and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) impact

assessment, civil engineering, and hydraulic engineering. These areas correspond to the technical

content of the CMP-ERP and overall scope of the CMP IEPR.

To identify candidate panel members, Battelle reviewed the credentials of the experts in

Battelle’s Peer Reviewer Database, sought recommendations from colleagues, contacted former


December 12, 2013 5

panel members, and conducted targeted Internet searches. Battelle evaluated these candidate

panel members in terms of their technical expertise and potential COIs. Of these candidates,

Battelle chose the most qualified individuals, confirmed their interest and availability, and

ultimately selected four experts for the final Panel. The remaining candidates were not proposed

for a variety of reasons, including lack of availability, disclosed COIs, or lack of the precise

technical expertise required.

The candidates were screened for the following potential exclusion criteria or COIs.1 These COI

questions were intended to serve as a means of disclosure and to better characterize a candidate’s

employment history and background. Providing a positive response to a COI screening question

did not automatically preclude a candidate from serving on the Panel. For example, participation

in previous USACE technical peer review committees and other technical review panel

experience was included as a COI screening question. A positive response to this question could

be considered a benefit.

Previous and/or current involvement by you or your firm2 in the Draft Feasibility Report

and Environmental Impact Statement for the Caño Martín Peña Ecosystem Restoration

Project, San Juan, Puerto Rico, or the Performance Measures Benthic Index, Mangrove

Root Community and Fisheries Habitat Models for the Caño Martín Peña Ecosystem

Restoration Project and San Juan Bay Estuary.

Previous and/or current involvement by you or your firm2 in flood control, ecosystem

restoration, or model quality assurance review within the area of San Juan Bay Estuary,

Puerto Rico.

Previous and/or current involvement by you or your firm2 in the Draft Feasibility Report

and Environmental Impact Statement for the Caño Martín Peña Ecosystem Restoration



Restoration Project.

Previous and/or current involvement by you or your firm2 in the conceptual or actual

design, construction, or operations and maintenance of any projects in the Draft

Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement for the Caño Martín Peña

Ecosystem Restoration Project, San Juan, Puerto Rico, or the Performance Measures

Benthic Index, Mangrove Root Community and Fisheries Habitat Models for the Caño

Martín Peña Ecosystem Restoration Project.

Current employment by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

1 Battelle evaluated whether scientists in universities and consulting firms that are receiving USACE-funding have sufficient

independence from USACE to be appropriate peer reviewers. See OMB (2004, p. 18), “….when a scientist is awarded a

government research grant through an investigator-initiated, peer-reviewed competition, there generally should be no question as

to that scientist's ability to offer independent scientific advice to the agency on other projects. This contrasts, for example, to a

situation in which a scientist has a consulting or contractual arrangement with the agency or office sponsoring a peer review.

Likewise, when the agency and a researcher work together (e.g., through a cooperative agreement) to design or implement a

study, there is less independence from the agency. Furthermore, if a scientist has repeatedly served as a reviewer for the same

agency, some may question whether that scientist is sufficiently independent from the agency to be employed as a peer reviewer

on agency-sponsored projects.” 2 Includes any joint ventures in which a panel member's firm is involved and if the firm serves as a prime or as a subcontractor to

a prime.


December 12, 2013 6

Previous and/or current involvement with paid or unpaid expert testimony related to Draft

Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement for the Caño Martín Peña

Ecosystem Restoration Project, San Juan, Puerto Rico, or the Performance Measures

Benthic Index, Mangrove Root Community and Fisheries Habitat Models for the Caño

Martín Peña Ecosystem Restoration Project.

Previous and/or current employment or affiliation with members of the cooperating

agencies or local sponsors: Corporación del Proyecto ENLACE del Caño Martín Peña;

USACE (for pay or pro bono).

Past, current or future interests or involvements (financial or otherwise) by you, your

spouse or children related to the San Juan Bay Estuary, Puerto Rico.

Current personal involvement with other USACE projects, including whether

involvement was to author any manuals or guidance documents for USACE. If yes,

provide titles of documents or description of project, dates, and location (USACE district,

division, Headquarters, ERDC, etc.), and position/role. Please highlight and discuss in

greater detail any projects that are specifically with the Jacksonville District.

Previous or current involvement with the development or testing of models that will be

used for or in support of the Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact

Statement for the Caño Martín Peña Ecosystem Restoration Project, San Juan, Puerto

Rico, or the Performance Measures Benthic Index, Mangrove Root Community and

Fisheries Habitat Models for the Caño Martín Peña Ecosystem Restoration Project.

Current firm2 involvement with other USACE projects, specifically those

projects/contracts that are with the Jacksonville District. If yes, provide title/description,

dates, and location (USACE district, division, Headquarters, ERDC, etc.), and

position/role. Please also clearly delineate the percentage of work you personally are

currently conducting for the Jacksonville District. Please explain.

Any previous employment by the USACE as a direct employee, notably if employment

was with the Jacksonville District. If yes, provide title/description, dates employed, and

place of employment (district, division, Headquarters, ERDC, etc.), and position/role.

Any previous employment by the USACE as a contractor (either as an individual or

through your firm2) within the last 10 years, notably if those projects/contracts are with

the Jacksonville District. If yes, provide title/description, dates employed, and place of

employment (district, division, Headquarters, ERDC, etc.), and position/role.

Previous experience conducting technical peer reviews. If yes, please highlight and

discuss any technical reviews concerning ecosystem review or flood management, and

include the client/agency and duration of review (approximate dates).

Pending, current or future financial interests in the Draft Feasibility Report and

Environmental Impact Statement for the Caño Martín Peña Ecosystem Restoration



Restoration Project or related contracts/awards from USACE.

A significant portion (i.e., greater than 50%) of personal or firm2 revenues within the last

3 years came from USACE contracts.


December 12, 2013 7

A significant portion (i.e., greater than 50%) of personal or firm2 revenues within the last

3 years from contracts with the non-federal sponsor (Proyecto ENLACE Del Caño Martín

Peña).

Any publicly documented statement (including, for example, advocating for or

discouraging against) related to the Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact

Statement for the Caño Martín Peña Ecosystem Restoration Project, San Juan, Puerto

Rico, or the Performance Measures Benthic Index, Mangrove Root Community and

Fisheries Habitat Models for the Caño Martín Peña Ecosystem Restoration Project.

Participation in relevant prior and/or current Federal studies relevant to this project and/or

the Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement for the Caño Martín

Peña Ecosystem Restoration Project, San Juan, Puerto Rico, or the Performance

Measures Benthic Index, Mangrove Root Community and Fisheries Habitat Models for

the Caño Martín Peña Ecosystem Restoration Project.

Previous and/or current participation in prior non-Federal studies relevant to this project

and/or the Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement for the Caño

Martín Peña Ecosystem Restoration Project, San Juan, Puerto Rico, or the Performance

Measures Benthic Index, Mangrove Root Community and Fisheries Habitat Models for

the Caño Martín Peña Ecosystem Restoration Project.

Is there any past, present, or future activity, relationship, or interest (financial or

otherwise) that could make it appear that you would be unable to provide unbiased

services on this project? If so, please describe:

In selecting the final members of the Panel, Battelle chose experts who best fit the expertise

areas and had no COIs. The four final reviewers are affiliated with consulting companies or are

independent consultants. Battelle established subcontracts with the panel members when they

indicated their willingness to participate and confirmed the absence of COIs through a signed

COI form. ENLACE was given the list of candidate panel members, but Battelle made the final

selection of the Panel. Section 4 of this report provides names and biographical information on

the panel members.

3.3 Conduct of the IEPR

Prior to beginning their review and within two days of their subcontracts being finalized, all

members of the Panel attended a kick-off meeting via teleconference planned and facilitated by

Battelle in order to review the IEPR process, the schedule, communication procedures, and other

pertinent information for the Panel. Battelle planned and facilitated a second kick-off meeting via

teleconference during which ENLACE presented project details to the Panel. Before the

meetings, the IEPR Panel received an electronic version of the final charge as well as the CMP-

ERP review documents and reference materials listed below. The documents and files in bold

font were provided for review; the other documents were provided for reference or supplemental

information only.

CMP-ERP Draft Feasibility Report (204 pages)

Appendix A: National Ecosystem Benefits Evaluation (32 pages)

Appendix B: Real Estate Plan (18 pages)


December 12, 2013 8

Appendix C: Recreation Resources Assessment and Recreation Plan (29 pages)

Appendix D: Cost Engineering (166 pages)

Appendix E: Adaptive Management Plan (39 pages)

Appendix F: Monitoring Plan (18 pages)

Appendix G: Engineering (293 pages)

Appendix H: CMP ERP Environmental Impact Statement (208 pages)

Essential Fish Habitat (57 pages)

Biological Assessment (42 pages)

404(b) (1) Evaluation (161 pages)

CZMC (22 pages)

Relevant Correspondence (47 pages)

USACE guidance Civil Works Review, (EC 1165-2-214) dated 15 December 2012

Office of Management and Budget’s Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

released December 16, 2004.

About half way through the review of the CMP-ERP review documents, a teleconference was

held with ENLACE, the Panel, and Battelle so that ENLACE could answer any questions the

Panel had concerning either the review documents or the project. Prior to this teleconference,

Battelle submitted three panel member questions to ENLACE. ENLACE was able to provide

responses to all three questions during the teleconference.

3.4 Review of Individual Comments

The Panel was instructed to address the charge questions/discussion points within a charge

question response table provided by Battelle. At the end of the review period, the Panel

produced individual comments in response to the charge questions/discussion points. Battelle

reviewed the comments to identify overall recurring themes, areas of potential conflict, and other

overall impressions. As a result of the review, Battelle summarized the individual comments

into a preliminary list of seven overall comments and discussion points. Each panel member’s

individual comments were shared with the full Panel in a merged individual comments table.

3.5 IEPR Panel Teleconference

Battelle facilitated a 4-hour teleconference with the Panel so that the panel members could

exchange technical information. The main goal of the teleconference was to identify which

issues should be carried forward as Final Panel Comments in the Final IEPR Report and decide

which panel member would serve as the lead author for the development of each Final Panel

Comment. This information exchange ensured that the Final IEPR Report would accurately

represent the Panel’s assessment of the project, including any conflicting opinions. The Panel

engaged in a thorough discussion of the overall positive and negative comments, added any

missing issues of high-level importance to the findings, and merged any related individual


December 12, 2013 9

comments. In addition, Battelle confirmed each Final Panel Comment’s level of significance to

the Panel.

At the end of these discussions, the Panel identified five comments and discussion points that

should be brought forward as Final Panel Comments.

3.6 Preparation of Final Panel Comments

Following the teleconference, Battelle prepared a summary memorandum for the Panel

documenting each Final Panel Comment (organized by level of significance). The memorandum

provided the following detailed guidance on the approach and format to be used to develop the

Final Panel Comments for the CMP IEPR:

Lead Responsibility: For each Final Panel Comment, one Panel member was identified

as the lead author responsible for coordinating the development of the Final Panel

Comment and submitting it to Battelle. Battelle modified lead assignments at the

direction of the Panel. To assist each lead in the development of the Final Panel

Comments, Battelle distributed the merged individual comments table, a summary

detailing each draft final comment statement, an example Final Panel Comment

following the four-part structure described below, and templates for the preparation of

each Final Panel Comment.

Directive to the Lead: Each lead was encouraged to communicate directly with the other

panel member as needed and to contribute to a particular Final Panel Comment. If a

significant comment was identified that was not covered by one of the original Final

Panel Comments, the appropriate lead was instructed to draft a new Final Panel

Comment.

Format for Final Panel Comments: Each Final Panel Comment was presented as part of a

four-part structure:

1. Comment Statement (succinct summary statement of concern)

2. Basis for Comment (details regarding the concern)

3. Significance (high, medium, low; see description below)

4. Recommendation(s) for Resolution (see description below).

Criteria for Significance: The following were used as criteria for assigning a significance

level to each Final Panel Comment:

1. High: Describes a fundamental problem with the project that could affect the

recommendation, success, or justification of the project. Comments rated as high

indicate that the Panel analyzed or assessed the methods, models, and/or analyses and

determined that there is a “showstopper” issue.

2. Medium: Affects the completeness of the report in describing the project, but will not

affect the recommendation or justification of the project. Comments rated as medium

indicate that the Panel does not have sufficient information to analyze or assess the

methods, models, or analyses.


December 12, 2013 10

3. Low: Affects the understanding or accuracy of the project as described in the report,

but will not affect the recommendation or justification of the project. Comments

rated as low indicate that the Panel identified information (tables, figures, equations,

discussions) that was mislabeled or incorrect or data or report sections that were not

clearly described or presented.

Guidance for Developing Recommendations: The recommendation section was to

include specific actions that ENLACE should consider to resolve the Final Panel

Comment (e.g., suggestions on how and where to incorporate data into the analysis, how

and where to address insufficiencies, areas where additional documentation is needed).

Battelle reviewed and edited the Final Panel Comments for clarity, consistency with the

comment statement, and adherence to guidance on the Panel’s overall charge, which included

ensuring that there were no comments regarding either the appropriateness of the selected

alternative or USACE policy. At the end of this process, five Final Panel Comments were

prepared and assembled. There was no direct communication between the Panel and ENLACE

during the preparation of the Final Panel Comments. The Final Panel Comments are presented

in Appendix A of this report.

4. PANEL DESCRIPTION

Candidates for the Panel were identified using Battelle’s Peer Reviewer Database, targeted

Internet searches using key words (e.g., technical area, geographic region), searches of websites

of universities or other compiled expert sites, and referrals. Battelle prepared a draft list of

primary and backup candidate panel members (who were screened for availability, technical

background, and COIs), and provided it to ENLACE for feedback. Battelle made the final

selection of panel members.

An overview of the credentials of the final four members of the Panel and their qualifications in

relation to the technical evaluation criteria is presented in Table 2. More detailed biographical

information regarding each panel member and his area of technical expertise is presented in the

text that follows the table.



Table 2. CMP IEPR Panel: Technical Criteria and Areas of Expertise

Technical Criterion

Milo

n

Pu

gh

Ch

urc

hill

Gio

van

no

zzi

Economist

Minimum 10 years of experience in evaluating and comparing alternative plans and evaluating and conducting National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) analyses of ecosystem restoration-related projects

X

Familiarity with large, complex Civil Works projects with high public and interagency interests

X

Experience working directly for or with USACE in applying Principles and Guidelines (P&G) to Civil Works project evaluations

X

Active participation in related professional societies X

Master’s degree or higher in a related field X

Wetland/NEPA Scientist (2 panel members)

Minimum 10 years of experience directly related to environmental evaluation or review, including NEPA assessments

X X


X X

Understanding of environmental impacts associated with dredging and placement of contaminated debris and sediment

X X

Experience working with wetlands and estuarine ecosystems X X

Understanding of embayment and riparian wetland ecological responses to navigation channel and overbank improvements

X X

Ability to evaluate the application of a benthic index and wetland functional assessment employed to predict ecosystem restoration

X X

Experience in the Puerto Rico region (preferred but not required)

– X

Master’s degree or higher in a related field

Waiv

er

a

X



Table 2. CMP IEPR Panel: Technical Criteria and Areas of Expertise (continued)

Technical Criterion

Milo

n

Pu

gh

Ch

urc

hill

Gio

van

no

zzi

(Du

al R

ole

)

Civil Engineer

Minimum 10 years of experience in engineering X

Registered Professional Engineer X


X

Demonstrated experience in: X

restoration projects X

dredged material disposal X

erosion X

coastal currents X

channel modifications X


Master’s degree or higher in civil, hydraulic or related engineering field

X

Hydraulic Engineer

Minimum 10 years of experience in engineering X

Registered Professional Engineer X


X

Demonstrated experience in: X

channel design X

channel modifications X

dredging X

coastal currents X


Master’s degree or higher in civil, hydraulic or related engineering field

X

a Waiver statement presented as part of Task 2 deliverable and approved by ENLACE



Walter Milon, Ph.D.

Role: Economist

Affiliation: Independent Consultant

Dr. Milon is the Provost’s Distinguished Research Professor in the Department of Economics at

the University of Central Florida’s College of Business Administration, and has over 35 years of

experience in research, teaching, and publishing related to water resource economics and

ecosystem restoration. He earned a Ph.D. in economics from Florida State University in 1978.

He teaches graduate-level courses on benefit cost and social impact analyses, economic theory,

and natural resource and environmental economics.

Dr. Milon is familiar with large, complex Civil Works projects with high public and interagency

interests. He has participated in the planning and technical advisory for the USACE Florida

Everglades Restudy (1995-1999), and was lead economist on recent USACE IEPRs including

the C-111 Spreader Canal Project Implementation Report and the Louisiana Coastal Area

Restoration Project (2009-2011). He was also the principal investigator for the research project,

Socioeconomic Evaluation of Hurricane Evacuation Response for the Florida Hurricane

Research alliance, and co-principal investigator of Florida’s Coastal Environmental Resources:

Economic Valuation and Analysis. Dr. Milon has experience in evaluating and comparing

alternative plans and evaluating and conducting National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) analyses

of ecosystem restoration-related projects. He has participated in several projects that have a

coastal ecosystem/restoration focus, including the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary

Program, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, and projects in the U.S. Virgin Islands

and the Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary. He also has several publications resulting

from these projects.

Dr. Milon has experience directly working for or with USACE in applying Principles and

Guidelines (P&G) to Civil Works projects. Dr. Milon has 25 years graduate teaching and

research experience in benefit-cost and Cost Effectiveness and Incremental Cost Analyses

(CE/ICA) methods, and is a member of the National Research Council Committee on USACE

Water Resources Science, Engineering, and Planning.

Steven Pugh

Role: Wetland/NEPA Scientist

Affiliation: Independent Consultant

Mr. Pugh is an independent consultant with 21 years of direct ecology experience, including

seven years with the USACE Baltimore District Planning Division (1999 – 2007). He earned his

B.S. in natural resources management from the University of Maryland in 1997. He is an expert

in the field of ecosystem restoration, the evaluation of ecosystem restoration projects and

watershed studies, and plan formulation. Mr. Pugh has 14 years of experience directly related to

environmental evaluation and review, which includes seven years as a planner and ecologist for

USACE and seven years as an independent consultant. This has included producing NEPA

documents, conducting fieldwork, and providing technical reviews. He has 21 years of

experience working with wetlands and wetland restoration in every phase – from planning

through implementation to monitoring and adaptive management. Much of this experience has



been within the Chesapeake Bay watershed and has included both freshwater and estuarine

wetlands of many classes.

He has worked with USACE on many large, complex Civil Works projects with high public and

interagency interests, including the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program, the

Louisiana Coastal Area, the Chesapeake Marshlands Restoration Program, the Anacostia River

Watershed Comprehensive Plan – Washington D.C., and the Kissimmee River Restoration

project. During his time at USACE, he was a PROSPECT instructor for the course "Planning for

Ecosystem Restoration” and is familiar with the application of USACE P&G to Civil Works

projects.

Mr. Pugh has an understanding of environmental impacts associated with dredging and

placement of contaminated debris and sediment. While working as a planner and ecologist with

the USACE Baltimore District, he worked on the analysis of environmental impacts from

dredging and placement of contaminated dredged material in urban rivers within the Chesapeake

Bay watershed. These projects were designed to develop tidal emergent wetlands at the

placement sites and to improve hydrologic exchange in back water channels. These projects

resulted in the development of river fringe wetlands, backwater emergent wetlands, and tidal gut

habitat, as well as placing dredged material from Federal maintained navigation channels. Mr.

Pugh represented USACE as the liaison to the interagency committee for the Urban Rivers

Restoration Initiative and on the Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Committee. He also has

an understanding of embayment and riparian wetland ecological responses to navigation channel

and overbank improvements. While at USACE, he worked on projects that included hydrologic

improvements to ecosystems via the dredging of channels and tidal guts and the development of

wetland habitat at placement sites in six areas on the Anacostia River. His work covered all

aspects of planning, from reconnaissance to monitoring and adaptive management, and included

annual workshops to develop lessons learned from the scientific community. In addition, he

participated in the development of the Chesapeake Marshlands Tidal Wetlands Restoration

Demonstration Project, which included studies related to tidal exchange and the placement of

dredged material to restore large-scale marsh habitat in an estuarine environment.

He is able to evaluate the application of a benthic index and wetland functional assessment

employed to predict ecosystem restoration. He has extensive experience with Wetlands

Functional Assessments, including the development of functional assessments, the use of

functional assessments in planning ecosystem restoration, and the evaluation of the use of

functional assessments for ecosystem restoration studies/projects. From 1996 to 1999, Mr. Pugh

worked for the Natural Resources Conservation Service Wetland Science Institute, where he

served as team leader on studies related to the development of ecological performance measures

for aquatic ecosystem restoration projects. He conducted studies to develop wetland assessment

tools such as the Hydrogeomorphic Method (HGM) and Indices of Biotic Integrity (IBI) for

isolated wetlands of the mid-Atlantic region. He participated in the National Biologic

Assessment of Wetlands Workgroup. He conducted fish, reptile, amphibian, vegetation, aquatic

invertebrate, soils, and hydrology studies related to the attributes of successful wetland

restoration projects. Mr. Pugh has been a panel member on several IEPR teams reviewing large-

scale ecosystem restoration studies and is an active member of the Society for Ecological

Restoration.



Jeffrey Churchill

Role: Wetland/NEPA Scientist

Affiliation: Environmental Analysis and Permitting, Inc.

Mr. Churchill is an ecological consultant for Environmental Analysis and Permitting, Inc. in St.

Petersburg, Florida. He has more than 33 years of ecological consulting experience in both

government and private sectors with a focus on wetlands and wildlife issues, wetland mitigation,

environmental permitting, and water use permitting assistance. He earned his M.S. in zoology

from the University of South Florida in 1983. His experience includes preliminary ecological

surveying, environmental permitting, NEPA assessments, mitigation design, Development of

Regional Impact (DRI) preparation, habitat restoration, avian ecology, vegetation surveys,

wildlife surveys, protected species permitting, and expert witness.

Mr. Churchill is familiar with large, complex Civil Works projects with high public and

interagency interests. He provided his expertise for mitigation and restoration studies for state,

local, Federal, and private entities on such studies as the SWIM Habitat Restoration in Tampa

Bay and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Rainbow Springs State Park

Wetlands in Marion County, Florida. He was lead ecologist on the Northwest Hillsborough

County Expressway project through the DEIS/EIS process and was involved in public meetings,

wetland mitigation, design, and implementation. The project involved coordination with all

Federal, state, and local environmental agency staff (including but not limited to National Marine

Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USACE, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission, and Department of State).

Mr. Churchill has a strong understanding of environmental impacts associated with dredging and

placement of contaminated debris and sediment. He has worked on a number of dredging

projects where the disposal of the dredge material was assessed to ensure it was completed in an

ecologically sound fashion avoiding unintended impacts to natural systems in the vicinity of the

project area. Example studies include Port Redwing, Florida, Coastal Energy Impact Program

and City of St. Petersburg Arterial Channel Dredging, St. Petersburg, Florida. He has experience

working with wetlands and estuarine ecosystems; the majority of his projects in the last 30 years

involve wetlands impacts/avoidance of impacts and mitigation/restoration. Approximately one

third of these projects have involved estuarine wetlands including mangrove forests, salt marsh,

and salt flats communities. Relevant studies include assessments of Rocky Point and

Bayport/Westshore Hyatt, both in Tampa, Florida. Additionally, he was involved in a Navy

project assessing the impacts on mangrove forests and developing a management plan on the

Island of Vieques. Through the work in Vieques as well as many other restoration projects, Mr.

Churchill has developed an understanding of how structural improvements such as channels

dredging and overbank improvements affect the ecology/ hydrology and embayment and riparian

wetlands.

Mr. Churchill is able to evaluate the application of benthic index and wetland functional

assessments along with other tools used to predict ecosystem restoration. He is knowledgeable in

the standard methods used for evaluating ecological benefits in tropical coastal and estuarine



ecosystems, such as functional analysis (Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method and Wetland

Rapid Assessment Protocol). He is also able to evaluate ecological benefits by assessing

community components such as productivity, diversity, and resources. He has knowledge of

benthic invertebrate communities and mangrove root communities. He has been involved in

numerous studies of benthic invertebrate communities in Tampa Bay and South Florida and from

his master’s research on the effect of infaunal populations on larval colonization in soft bottom

benthic communities. He previously worked for Mangrove Systems, which specialized in

restoration and impact assessment of mangrove forest areas. Most studies often included a faunal

component assessing both epifauna and infauna associated with mangrove forests. He is familiar

with the development of ecological models, evaluation of assumptions, and verification of

models. He has worked with a variety of hydrologic models that intend to mimic naturally

occurring events to predict ecological outcome.

Michael Giovannozzi, P.E.

Role: Civil and hydraulic engineering (dual role)

Affiliation: AquaTerra Consulting International

Mr. Giovannozzi is a coastal and hydraulic engineer for AquaTerra Consulting International in

West Palm Beach, Florida. He has more than 13 years of engineering experience in both

government and private sectors in the fields of coastal and hydraulic engineering throughout the

United States. He earned his B.S. in civil engineering from the University of Delaware in 1999

and his M.S. in civil engineering from the University of Delaware in 2001. He is a registered

professional engineer (P.E.) in Florida, Alabama, Texas, Georgia, South Carolina and Maryland.

Mr. Giovannozzi’s work history includes two years with the USACE Philadelphia District, three

years with the USACE Seattle District, and eight years in private consulting. His experience

includes hydraulic and hydrologic studies, sediment transport modeling, numerical modeling of

water level and flow speed, probabilities of overtopping of protective structures, design of bank

stabilization, wetland and ecosystem restoration, flood mapping, and flood damage reduction

studies.

While with the USACE Seattle District, Mr. Giovannozzi was routinely involved in large,

complex Civil Works projects. For example, he provided conceptual design reviews for the

Puget Sound Nearshore Restoration Program, which included ecosystem restorations of over 40

sites throughout Puget Sound and had Federal, state, local, and tribal stakeholders. In addition to

his work in Puget Sound, Mr. Giovanozzi has been involved in several restoration projects, most

recently as the lead coastal engineer for a series of mangrove restoration projects in Guyana,

South America. One of these projects included extensive channel modifications to restore

hydraulic conductivity to a landlocked mangrove strand. Another restoration project that had

high public and interagency interest was the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands pilot project for the

Everglades Restoration Program. Mr. Giovannozzi performed hydraulic modeling, seepage

analysis, wave run-up and overtopping assessment, and water level and flow speed determination

for the embankment design for water storage treatment areas.

Mr. Giovannozzi has participated in dredging projects from both a hydraulic and civil

engineering standpoint. He is familiar with both mechanical and hydraulic dredging technologies

and recently completed the USACE Dredging Fundamentals Course.



While at the USACE Seattle District, he was the project manager for the outer reach of the Grays

Harbor Navigation Channel Maintenance Dredging project. Another example of his experience

with dredged material is a project in Guyana that involved using dredged material to fill a series

of geotextile tubes serving as breakwaters. Mr. Giovannozzi also has experience planning and

designing stream bank stabilization and shore protection structures to minimize erosion due to

wave and current action. Most recently, he was involved in the design of a 1,000 meter-long rip

rap revetment on Leguan Island located near the mouth of the Essequibo River in Guyana, South

America. Because of its close proximity to the Atlantic Ocean, the site had experienced

significant erosion from locally generated wind waves, tidal currents, river currents, and vessel

wake.

Mr. Giovannozzi has extensive experience in coastal current studies. He has performed

hydrodynamic and sediment transport modeling, morphologic analysis, and engineering

assessments for multiple projects to determine expected water levels, tidal exchange, wave

conditions, and circulation patterns. Mr. Giovannozzi was also the coastal engineer for a

dredging/environmental restoration project for an island community located on the Intracoastal

Waterway in Palm Beach County, Florida. The work included tidal hydraulic modeling, channel

optimization, and dredging cost estimates for hydraulic and mechanic dredging to restore tidal

connectivity. While at the USACE Philadelphia District, he was the hydraulic engineer for a

coastal inlet hydrodynamics study. The study involved numerical modeling to predict sediment

transport potential for several alternative sand borrow-area strategies for a Federal beach fill

project in Ocean City, New Jersey.

Mr. Giovannozzi also has demonstrated experience in channel design and in the modification of

existing channels. He was involved in the hydrodynamic modeling of canals for the World

Islands Mega Project in Dubai, United Arab Emirate. The project required a balanced design

that allowed for safe navigation of pleasure craft, provided sufficient flow to minimize siltation

and improve tidal flow, while also minimizing shoreline erosion. The study included

hydrodynamic and sediment transport modeling. He was the lead project engineer on the

Quillayute Navigation Channel Improvement Study in Washington State. This study used

numerical wave and current models to optimize the channel modification scheme to improve

hydraulic efficiency with an aim to reduce future maintenance dredging activities.

Recommendations were provided to alter the channel cross section and to rehabilitate a nearby

sea dike to optimize the channel flow.

Mr. Giovannozzi is an active member of several professional societies: the American Society of

Civil Engineers; Coasts, Oceans, Ports, Rivers Institute; and the Association of Coastal

Engineers. He regularly attends and presents at national and international conferences on flood

damage reduction and shoreline protection. In addition, he is the Secretary for the World

Association for Waterbourne Transport Infrastructure (PIANC) Work Group committee.



5. SUMMARY OF FINAL PANEL COMMENTS

The panel members agreed among one other on their “assessment of the adequacy and

acceptability of the economic, engineering, and environmental methods, models, and analyses

used” (USACE, 2012; p. D-4) in the CMP document. Table 3 lists the Final Panel Comments

statements by level of significance. The full text of the Final Panel Comments is presented in

Appendix A of this report. The following summarizes the Panel’s findings.

The CMP IEPR and Model Quality Assurance Review were conducted concurrently and by

separate review panels. The IEPR Panel reviewed the CMP DFR-EIS under the assumption that

all models employed in the study met the required technical quality and usability standards set by

USACE. If the results of the Model Quality Assurance Review indicate that this assumption is

incorrect, then the IEPR Panel’s assessment of the adequacy and acceptability of the economic,

engineering, and environmental methods, models, data, and analyses performed for the CMP-

ERP, as described here, would be compromised. Any significant issues identified by the Model

Quality Assurance Review would need to be resolved to ensure that the accuracy and reliability

of the plan formulation process, cost estimate, and stated benefits of the CMP-ERP are realized.

The Panel agreed that the CMP-ERP review documents and appendices are well-written and

provide a comprehensive description of the ecosystem restoration project. Conclusions are

supported with logical and easy-to-follow supporting information. While the Panel deemed the

report generally had robust documentation, it identified areas where additional documentation

and clarification are warranted.

Wetland and NEPA Impact Assessment –The Panel found the assumptions made for the

environmental analysis and assessment of wetland impacts and benefits are sound. However, the

assumption that water quality improvements resulting from the restoration of tidal connectivity

in the study area may not be accurate since the combined sewer overflows and direct dumping of

raw sewage have the potential to affect recovery of the ecosystem in some locations within the

study area. The importance of project measures, particularly to eliminate raw sewage and

provide storm water treatment, to the study area, as outlined in the adaptive management plan,

cannot be understated. Three of the five primary uncertainties listed in the adaptive management

plan are attributed to the discharge of untreated waste or combined storm water and waste into

the study area. The adaptive management plan rates these three uncertainties as “high” risks and

states that they relate to the main objective of the project. The Panel is concerned that wastewater

loads from combined sewer overflows and direct dumping of raw sewage in the study area has

the potential of inhibiting the recovery of benthic and mangrove habitat, resulting in the

projected restoration outputs not being fully achieved. The Panel believes these issues can be

addressed by documenting the details of known existing programs or projects intended to

eliminate or sufficiently reduce the dumping of raw sewage or combined storm water and sewage

overflow into the CMP, conducting the studies or modeling necessary to better determine the

potential impacts of the discharge of sewage and polluted storm water into the study area, and

coordinating with the appropriate agencies to facilitate the removal, reduction, or remediation of

sewage into the study area.



The Panel found the monitoring and adaptive management plans to be largely conceptual and do

not provide specific methodologies to determine the capabilities, limitations, and costs of the

plans. The monitoring information is very general and the methods used to sample these

parameters are not supported by references to the professional literature. The adaptive

management plan lacks supporting documentation for these trigger levels, the performance

standards, and the expected success of proposed management actions. Additionally, no cost

estimates or funding sources are given for the proposed management actions. The Panel believes

this issue can be addressed by providing a more through description and documentation of (1)

the baseline data and the proposed monitoring methods and procedures and the associated costs,

including appropriate citations from professional literature supporting the specific methods

selected for each monitoring element; and (2) proposed adaptive management performance

standards, the related management actions, and cost estimates and funding sources to identify

viable options.

Engineering – The Panel found the preliminary engineering analysis to be comprehensive and

the assumptions made for the engineering analysis to be sound and reasonable. The engineering

analysis uses accepted USACE hydrologic and hydraulic models. The CHED-WES

hydrodynamic model is used to assess flow velocities and water quality (as residence time), and

its model capabilities and limitations are clearly defined. However, the Panel is concerned that

geotechnical engineering data are limited for this stage of the project.

The impacts of channel velocities on scour rates could not be determined due to the limited

geotechnical data and soil analyses, which could affect the estimated construction costs and

selected channel configuration. Uncertainties in the soil analyses and shear stress calculations

could impact the required scour protection, channel configuration, and cost estimate. The Panel

believes this concern can be addressed by performing additional geotechnical analysis to obtain a

higher level of confidence in the scour analysis, revising scour protection requirements for

alternatives based on the results of geotechnical analysis and in consideration of detailed

modeling output, and revising cost estimates for the project alternatives accordingly.

The Panel also found that the decision for eliminating a trapezoidal section early in the screening

process is not supported by data or analyses. A more thorough analysis of the geotechnical

conditions and more detailed cost analysis may identify lower cost channel configuration

alternatives. This issue could be addressed by determining additional costs associated with the

excavation, transport, and disposition of additional sediments associated with a trapezoidal

channel, performing addition geotechnical analysis to determine suitable slopes for a trapezoidal

channel, and analyzing additional costs associated with slope stabilization materials for the

trapezoidal channel, if applicable.

The Panel also noted that an alternative disposal site is not identified in the event that the

contamination of the dredged material is determined to be unacceptable for ocean disposal. It is

not clear whether dredged material can be properly disposed at the selected disposal site, which

risks project delays and potentially additional costs. The Panel believes this can be confirmed by

conducting the sediment fate modeling and bioassays referenced to verify that the dredged

materials from the CMP are suitable for ocean disposal at the Ocean Dredged Material Disposal

Site (ODMDS) site, and considering alternative dredged material disposal sites solutions,



including cost implications, if the sediment fate modeling and bioassays cannot confirm the

suitability of ocean disposal.

Economics – The economic analysis is thorough and provides sufficient justification for the

Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP). The methods, models, and analysis used in the Cost

Effectiveness and Incremental Cost Analyses (CE/ICA) process are adequate and acceptable.

Existing socioeconomic resources are adequately described and provide support for the without

project conditions. Socioeconomic impacts of the project are discussed and sufficient plans to

address these impacts are provided. Potential socioeconomic impacts of the project will also

need to be monitored and addressed in the future, as discussed in the CMP-ERP review

documents.

Table 3. Overview of Five Final Panel Comments Identified by the CMP IEPR Panel

No. Final Panel Comment


1


2 The impacts of channel velocities on scour rates cannot be determined due to the limited geotechnical data and soil analyses, which could affect the estimated construction costs and selected channel configuration.


3 The monitoring and adaptive management plans are largely conceptual and do not provide specific methodologies to determine the capabilities, limitations, and costs of the plans.

4 The decision to eliminate a trapezoidal section early in the screening process is not supported by data or analyses.

5 An alternative disposal site has not been identified in the event that the contamination of the dredged material is determined to be unacceptable for ocean disposal.



6. REFERENCES

Bailey, S. E., P.R. Schroeder, C.E. Ruiz, M.R. Palermo, and B.W. Bunch (2002). Design of

Contained Aquatic Disposal (CAD) Pits for CMP San Juan, Puerto Rico. U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, December.

http://www.dragadomartinpena.org/docs/CAD_Pits_Rpt.pdf

FHWA (2005). Design of Roadside Channels with Flexible Linings. Hydraulic Engineering

Circular (HEC) 15, Third Edition. Publication No. FHWA-NHI-05-114. U.S. Department of

Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Institute. September.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/05114/05114.pdf

Johansson, J.O.R. (1991). Long Term Trends of Nitrogen Loading, Water Quality and

Biological Indicators in Hillsborough Bay, Florida. In: Treat, S. F., and Clark, P.A., eds.

Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium (BASIS) 2, 1991, February

27- March 1. Tampa, FL, 528 pp.

http://tbeptech.org/BASIS/BASIS2/BASIS2.pdf#page=166

OMB (2004). Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review. Executive Office of the

President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C. Memorandum M-05-03.

December 16.

The National Academies (2003). Policy on Committee Composition and Balance and Conflicts

of Interest for Committees Used in the Development of Reports. The National Academies

(National Academy of Science, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine,

National Research Council). May 12.

USACE (2012). Water Resources Policies and Authorities: Civil Works Review. Department of

the Army, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. Engineer Circular (EC) No. 1165-2-

214. December 15.

Webb, R.M.T., and F. Gómez-Gómez (1998). Synoptic Survey of Water Quality and Bottom

Sediments, San Juan Bay Estuary System, Puerto Rico, December 1994-July 1995. U.S.

Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 97-4144. 69 pp.

http://onlinepubs.er.usgs.gov/djvu/WRI/wrir_97_4144.djvu








December 12, 2013 A-1

APPENDIX A

Final Panel Comments

for the

CMP IEPR






Final Panel Comment 1


Basis for Comment

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) states, “Restoration of the CMP will re-establish the tidal connection between the San Juan Lagoon and the San Juan Bay, which will improve dissolved oxygen levels and salinity stratification, increase biodiversity by restoring fish habitat and benthic conditions and improve the functional value of mangrove habitat within the estuary” (Appendix H, p. v).

The restoration of the Caño Martín Peña (CMP) certainly addresses one of the major sources of stress on the ecosystem by improving tidal flushing and reducing the residence time, therefore restoring a more natural tidal regime. Improving tidal flushing is expected to have a substantial positive impact on the water quality in the study area. However, the proposed restoration plan does not directly address the source of a second major stress on the ecosystem, namely the dumping of raw sewage into the water.

The EIS states, “In some places, the San Juan Bay Estuary (SJBE) is hypereutrophic or overwhelmed with nutrients, has anoxic or oxygen lacking bottom waters, its sediments contain heavy metals, trace elements, and organic compounds; and receives raw sewage from combined sewer overflows (CSO) and direct discharges from housing along parts of its perimeter” (Appendix H, p.3-7).

Based in part on studies conducted by Webb and Gomez (1998), the EIS attributes habitat and ecosystem degradation to multiple factors including wastewater loads. For instance the EIS states, “Violations to water quality standards have resulted in repeated high

levels of fecal coliform and organic pollutants, and low levels of dissolved oxygen, all of which can directly affect public health as well as fish and wildlife resources in the CMP and the San José Lagoon, and indirectly, in most of the SJBE…The source of these impairments can be related to reduced flushing, wastewater loads from direct and indirect untreated sewage discharges, urban storm water runoff, subsurface seepage in areas littered with household waste, and direct household waste dumping.” (Appendix H p. 3-7).

Additionally, three of the five primary uncertainties listed in the adaptive management plan (Appendix E, pp.16-17) are attributed to the discharge of untreated waste or CSO and waste into the study area. The adaptive management plan rates these three uncertainties as “high” risks and states that they relate to the main objective of the project.

The SJBE Ecological Model (Appendix A-1) also correlates discharges of sewage into the estuary with the degradation of coral reef, mangrove wetlands, estuarine fish communities, and the benthic community.



Literature Cited:

Johansson, J.O.R. (1991). Long Term Trends of Nitrogen Loading, Water Quality and Biological Indicators in Hillsborough Bay, Florida. In: Treat, S. F., and Clark, P.A., eds. Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium (BASIS) 2, 1991, Feb-ruary 27- March 1. Tampa, FL, 528 pp. http://tbeptech.org/BASIS/BASIS2/BASIS2.pdf#page=166

The deleterious impacts from wastewater loads on ecosystem health are well- documented in ecological literature even in areas where reduced tidal flushing is not an issue. For example, Johansson (1991) describes the history of water quality in Hillsborough Bay, Florida, a tidally connected portion of the Tampa Bay system. Although other sources contributed to water quality problems, early studies identified the City of Tampa Wastewater Treatment Plant as a primary source of nitrogen and carbonaceous material that contributed to the water quality problems of this system. This plant had been operating and discharging large nutrient loads for more than 40 years, and recommendations for improvements to the plant were identified as critical components of many of the ecological studies.

In 1979 the City of Tampa Waste Water Treatment Plant was upgraded to advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) standards, and nitrogen removal has been maintained at AWT standards since that time. Johansson (1991) has documented improvements in water quality and ecologic indicators that have occurred since upgrading to AWT standards including reduction in phytoplankton biomass, decreases in chlorophyll, and an increase in dissolved oxygen in bottom waters (particularly in summer). Although reductions in other nitrogen sources have been documented and contributed to water quality improvement, the removal of 60 million gallons per day of primary effluent is widely believed to have been a significant component of the improvement in water quality and ecosystem health in Hillsborough Bay.

It is the view of the Panel that removal, reduction, or remediation of the combined sewer overflows and raw sewage discharges into the CMP is an important step for improving water quality to the extent that the projected restoration benefits can be fully realized.


The wastewater loads from combined sewage overflow and direct dumping of raw sewage in the study area could potentially inhibit the recovery of benthic and mangrove habitat, so that projected restoration outputs might not be fully achieved.

Recommendations for Resolution

1. Document the details of known existing programs or projects intended to eliminate or sufficiently reduce the dumping of raw sewage or CSO into the CMP.

2. Conduct the studies or modeling necessary to better determine the potential impacts sewage discharge and polluted storm water into the study area.

3. Coordinate with the appropriate agencies to facilitate the removal, reduction, or re-mediation of sewage discharges into the study area.




Webb, R.M.T., and F. Gómez-Gómez (1998). Synoptic Survey of Water Quality and Bottom Sediments, San Juan Bay Estuary System, Puerto Rico, December 1994-July 1995. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 97-4144. 69 pp. http://onlinepubs.er.usgs.gov/djvu/WRI/wrir_97_4144.djvu





The impacts of channel velocities on scour rates cannot be determined due to the limited geotechnical data and soil analyses, which could affect the estimated construction costs and selected channel configuration.

Basis for Comment

The Engineering Appendix (Appendix D) states that bottom sediments consist of “predominately hard silts and clays at a depth of 10 to 15 feet below the existing bottom” (Section 5.2.2). For this type of soil the permissible shear strength depends on cohesive strength and soil density.

Hydraulic Engineering Circular 15 (FHWA 2005) is used to calculate permissible shear stress based on plasticity index (PI) and void ratio. However, the void ratio was not known for the limited soil samples that were analyzed and the PI varied greatly (from 14 to 24). In addition, the shear stress calculation assumes a PI > 20; however, out of the 34 core samples taken, only two samples had a PI greater than 20. Based on these assumptions, the scour potential analysis assumes that velocities of 3.5 to 4 fps would exceed critical sheer stresses, causing bed scour.

Given the uncertainty involved in the selection of the void ratio and PI, the error associated with the calculation of permissible shear stress and associated bottom velocities may be high. It therefore appears to be unreasonable to assume scour protection is required for the 75 ft wide x 10 ft deep channel alternative when the calculated peak channel velocities are only 5.5% greater than the high end of the selected threshold of 3.5 to 4 fps. Omitting scour protection would reduce costs by $10 million, making the 75 ft wide x 10 ft deep channel alternative more favorable.

Moreover, the analysis examines only the peak velocity of the entire spatial and temporal domain of the hydrodynamic model. The analysis does not consider areas of increased or reduced flow that may change scour protection requirements. Nor does it consider time dependency of the scour; since the peak tide velocities are expected to only occur for several hours per day, scouring events will be episodic and of limited duration. Therefore the scour protection requirements for the proposed alternatives do not appear to have been optimized through consideration of the spatial and temporal variation of channel velocities.


Uncertainties in the soil analyses and shear stress calculations could affect the required scour protection, channel configuration, and cost estimate.


1. Perform additional geotechnical analysis to obtain a higher level of confidence in the scour analysis.

2. Revise scour protection requirements for alternatives based on the results of ge-otechnical analysis and in consideration of detailed modeling output.



Literature Cited:

FHWA (2005). Design of Roadside Channels with Flexible Linings. Hydraulic Engineering Circular (HEC) 15, Third Edition. Publication No. FHWA-NHI-05-114. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Institute. September. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/05114/05114.pdf

3. Revise cost estimates for the project alternatives accordingly.





The monitoring and adaptive management plans are largely conceptual and do not provide specific methodologies to determine the capabilities, limitations, and costs of the plans.

Basis for Comment

The monitoring plan (MP) (Appendix F) provides information about initial plans to determine baseline conditions for specific ecosystem parameters. The monitoring information is very general and the methods used to sample these parameters are not supported by references to the professional literature. Preconstruction monitoring appears to be a single event or based on existing data, and there is no discussion whether proposed monitoring station locations or methodologies are suitable for comparison with existing pre-project data. Bathymetric surveys to determine post-construction sedimentation rates and maintenance dredging requirements within the Caño Martín Peña (CMP) are not included in the MP. There is also no measure of the benefit to fisheries outside the mangrove prop root community of the CMP or other areas of the San Juan Bay Estuary (SJBE) predicted to benefit from the project. Costs for MP elements are provided in Appendix F, Table 3, but there is no supporting documentation to determine how these cost estimates were derived.

The adaptive management plan (AMP) (Appendix E) provides details on ecosystem targets and triggers for specific management actions. The AMP, however, lacks supporting documentation for these trigger levels, the performance standards, and the expected success of proposed management actions. Additionally, no cost estimates or funding sources are provided for the proposed management actions.

Both the MP and the AMP state that detailed performance standards and management actions would be developed in the Pre-Construction, Engineering and Design phase. However, the IEPR Panel could not determine the adequacy and acceptability of the proposed actions to achieve the restoration objectives since the current MP and AMP do not provide complete descriptions of future actions and the necessary details, including costs.


Sufficient documentation was not provided to assess the adequacy of the MP and AMP or whether the costs are reasonable.


1. Provide a more through description and documentation of the baseline data and the proposed monitoring methods and procedures and the associated costs. Include appropriate citations from professional literature (e.g., standard methods, journal articles) supporting the specific methods selected for each monitoring element.

2. Provide a more thorough description and documentation for proposed adaptive management performance standards, the related management actions, and cost estimates and funding sources to identify viable options.




The decision to eliminate a trapezoidal section early in the screening process is not supported by data or analyses.

Basis for Comment

Section 5.1, Plan Formulation Overview, explains that several alternative plans, such as a fully trapezoidal channel and a large diameter pipeline, were analyzed in previous reports, but were eliminated from further analysis due to various technical reasons. The Engineering Appendix (Appendix D) provides a comparative summary of the “slope versus bulkhead” channel configurations, with the primary considerations being dredging volumes, project costs, geotechnical, mangrove restoration, and recreation. Of these, the volume of dredge material is perhaps the biggest factor as it drives construction costs associated with excavation, transportation of sediments, and disposition of the sediments. However, a cost estimate has not been performed to compare the increased costs associated with the additional dredging/excavation requirements for the sloped structure (trapezoidal section) versus the sheet pile wall that is included in the seven alternatives that were evaluated in the planning process.

The geotechnical discussion in Section 5.17 (Appendix D) explains that, in addition to the increased excavation necessary to achieve the channel template, the trapezoidal channel would require “additional excavation of the sediments in the side slopes to a depth of 4 to 6 feet below the finished grade, filtering out the debris and placement and stabilization of the filtered sediments.” However, since no cost information associated with these activities has been provided, the Panel could not compare the costs of a trapezoidal channel with sheet pile alternatives.

A similar slope stabilization technique would be necessary for the sheet pile wall alternative. Section 3.3.6.1, Channel Stability (Appendix D) mentions that during dredging operations “temporary slope angles will be maintained until the installation of the sheet pile,” at a slope of 1V:3H down to -5 ft and 1V:5H from -5 to -10 ft. Figure 5.4-2 supports this statement as it shows over-excavation and backfilling as part of the sheet pile installation. Therefore the increased cost associated with slope stabilization is likely similar in order of magnitude for both the sloped and sheet pile alternatives.

The rough order of magnitude cost estimate provided in Appendix D indicates that the sheet pile wall will cost more than $53 million for Alternatives 1 and 2, whereas the cost associated with dredging (earthwork and dredge material disposal) only amounts to about $14.9 million and $16.7 million, respectively, for Alternatives 1 and 2. Given the relatively high cost of the sheet pile wall compared to the cost of dredging, completing additional geotechnical analysis to determine suitable dredge slopes and associated costs for a trapezoidal channel appears to be warranted.


A more thorough analysis of the geotechnical conditions and more detailed cost analysis may identify lower cost channel configuration alternatives.




1. Determine the costs of excavation, transport, and disposition of additional sediments associated with a trapezoidal channel.

2. Perform additional geotechnical analysis to determine suitable slopes for a trapezoi-dal channel.

3. Analyze additional costs associated with slope stabilization materials for the trape-zoidal channel, if applicable.




An alternative disposal site has not been identified in the event that the contamination of the dredged material is determined to be unacceptable for ocean disposal.

Basis for Comment

Sediment sampling conducted as part of the Draft Feasibility Report-Environmental Impact Statement (DFR-EIS) indicates that the dredged material will include a mixture of materials: sediments containing an elevated level of contaminants, cleaner sediments, trash, and debris. The trash and debris, the product of past land development activities, is estimated to make up approximately 10% of the dredged material volume. The DFR-EIS calls for separation of the trash and debris from the dredged material and disposal of this material at an upland landfill. The methodology for handling the trash and debris is well-defined in the DFR-EIS, with a staging and dredged material handling site identified and analyzed for suitability. The remaining 90% of the dredged material, an estimated 657,000 cubic yards in situ, consists of sediments of various qualities.

The DFR-EIS considers a number of disposal methods for the sediment portion of the dredged material from the Caño Martín Peña (CMP). They include offshore ocean disposal at the San Juan Ocean Dredge Material Disposal Site (ODMDS), contained aquatic disposal (CAD) considering a number of sites in the San Juan Bay Estuary (SJBE), landfill disposal, permanent upland disposal, and beneficial use of dredged sediments. All of the potential sites/methods, with the exception of ocean disposal, were eliminated from consideration due to costs, constructability, vulnerability to resuspension of contaminated sediments, or public concern.

Sediment quality in the SJBE sampled over the years is characterized as severely degraded (Section 3.4.3, Appendix H). The DFR-EIS refers to the sediments to be dredged from the CMP as potentially contaminated and makes reference to bioassay and sediment testing that would be necessary to verify the suitability of the sediments for ocean disposal at the ODMDS.

Section 404(b)(1) Part 2, Section 2.2.7 (Appendix H) further discusses the potential for contaminated sediments and the suitability of ocean disposal. As described in this section, the Final Technical Memorandum (Task 2.6) and the Technical Memorandum (Task 2.05), developed by Atkins in 2010 and 2011 respectively, summarize the available information on the material proposed to be dredged from the CMP. These documents note that (1) the sediments exceed relevant guidance criteria for contamination; (2) the extreme depths of the ODMDS would likely result in dispersion of the sediments so that once they reached the sea floor they would not cause adverse environmental impacts; and (3) the metals concentrations of the contaminated sediments would not be expected to exceed the existing water quality criteria outside a 1000 foot mixing zone from the disposal area, based on earlier work by Bailey et al. (2004) with selenium. However, this section also states that a combination of sediment fate modeling and bioassays would be required to verify these assumptions and outcomes. Therefore the potential exists that the contaminated sediments may not be



Literature Cited:

Bailey, S. E., P.R. Schroeder, C.E. Ruiz, M.R. Palermo, and B.W. Bunch (2002). De-sign of Contained Aquatic Disposal (CAD) Pits for CMP San Juan, Puerto Rico. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, Decem-ber. http://www.dragadomartinpena.org/docs/CAD_Pits_Rpt.pdf

suitable for disposal at the sole remaining disposal site.


The lack of confirmation that the dredged material can be properly disposed at the selected disposal site risks project delays and potentially additional costs.


1. Conduct the sediment fate modeling and bioassays referenced to verify that the dredged materials from the CMP are suitable for ocean disposal at the ODMDS site.

2. Consider alternative dredged material disposal sites solutions, including cost implica-tions, if the sediment fate modeling and bioassays cannot confirm the suitability of ocean disposal.



December 12, 2013 B-1

APPENDIX B

Final Charge to the Independent External Peer Review Panel as Submitted to ENLACE on November 1, 2013

on the

CMP-ERP






Charge Questions and Guidance to the Panel Members

for the Independent External Peer Review

of the

Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement

for the Caño Martín Peña Ecosystem Restoration Project,


BACKGROUND




watershed is heavily urbanized and covers 97 square miles. The western half of the CMP was

dredged during the 1980s as part of a waterway transportation project. The eastern half of the

CMP, historically between 200 and 400 feet wide and navigable, has a current depth of between

3.94 feet to 0 feet towards San José Lagoon. Due to years of encroachment and fill of the

mangrove swamps along the CMP, it no longer serves as a functional connection between San

Juan Bay and San José Lagoon. Sedimentation rates within the CMP are nearly two orders of

magnitude higher than in other parts of the SJBE. Open waters in areas closer to the San José

Lagoon have been lost, as the area has started transitioning into a wetland. Sediments include a

combination of debris, vegetation, and other waste accounting for 10% of its composition.

Approximately 26,000 US citizens and immigrants, many of whom have low to very low

incomes, live in eight communities north and south of the eastern CMP, located next to the Hato

Rey Financial District. Significant areas of these communities lack sewer systems. Raw sewage

discharges from these areas as well as from combined sewer overflows have led to fecal coliform

concentrations of 2,000,000 colonies per 100 mL, when the regulatory standard is of 200

colonies per 100 mL. Water residence time in the San José and Los Corozos lagoons is on the

order of 17 days, causing strong salinity stratification that has led to low oxygen or no oxygen

levels in the 702 acres of lagoons with depth below 4 to 6 ft, severely affecting benthic habitats.

Water quality and essential fish habitat have also been affected. The CMP Ecosystem

Restoration Project (ERP) will restore tidal connectivity between the San José Lagoon and the

San Juan Bay by removing over 800,000 cubic yards of sediments, debris, and trash; reducing

water residence time; improving water quality; improving essential fish habitat conditions, and

mobility of fish throughout the SJBE; and boosting biodiversity.

San Juan Bay Estuary is one of the estuarine systems included in the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency’s National Bay and Estuary Program (NEP). The NEP was started in 1987 as

part of the Clean Water Act to protect and restore estuaries while supporting economic and

recreational activities. One of the goals of the San Juan Bay Estuary Program (SJBEP) and the

Environmental Quality Board of Puerto Rico included the development of a hydrodynamic and a

water quality model of the SJBE system for use in determining effective alternatives for water

quality improvement and predicting the impacts of future development. A study was conducted

to satisfy this goal, and a model was developed to evaluate the effectiveness of management

alternatives on water quality improvement. The model is used for evaluating the effects of

changes in system hydrology, structural features, and/or pollutant loadings on circulation and



water quality. Management alternatives considered included methods to increase system flushing

and reduce pollutant loadings.











OBJECTIVES

The objective of this work is to conduct an independent external peer review (IEPR) of the Draft

Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement for the Caño Martín Peña Ecosystem

Restoration Project, San Juan, Puerto Rico and Model Quality Assurance Review of the

Performance Measures for Caño Martín Peña Ecosystem Restoration (hereinafter: CMP IEPR) in

accordance with the Department of the Army, USACE, Water Resources Policies and

Authorities’ Civil Works Review (EC 1165-2-214, dated December 15, 2012), and the Office of

Management and Budget’s Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (December 16,

2004).

Peer review is one of the important procedures used to ensure that the quality of published

information meets the standards of the scientific and technical community. Peer review typically

evaluates the clarity of hypotheses, validity of the research design, quality of data collection

procedures, robustness of the methods employed, appropriateness of the methods for the

hypotheses being tested, extent to which the conclusions follow from the analysis, and strengths

and limitations of the overall product.

The purpose of the IEPR is to assess the “adequacy and acceptability of the economic,

engineering, and environmental methods, models, and analyses used” (EC 1165-2-214; p. D-

4) for the CMP-ERP documents. The IEPR will be limited to technical review and will not

involve policy review. The IEPR will be conducted by subject matter experts (i.e., IEPR panel

members) with extensive experience in economics, environmental (wetlands and NEPA), and

engineering (civil and hydraulic) issues relevant to the project. They will also have experience

applying their subject matter expertise to ecosystem restoration.

The Panel will be “charged” with responding to specific technical questions as well as providing

a broad technical evaluation of the overall project. Per EC 1165-2-214, Appendix D, review

panels should identify, explain, and comment upon assumptions that underlie all the analyses, as

well as evaluate the soundness of models, surveys, investigations, and methods. Review panels

should be able to evaluate whether the interpretations of analysis and the conclusions based on

analysis are reasonable. Reviews should focus on assumptions, data, methods, and models. The



panel members may offer their opinions as to whether there are sufficient analyses upon which to

base a recommendation.

DOCUMENTS PROVIDED

The following is a list of documents, supporting information, and reference materials that will be

provided for the review.

Documents for Review

The following documents are to be reviewed by designated discipline:

Title Approx.

No. of Pages

Required Disciplines

CMP ERP Draft Feasibility report 204 All Disciplines

Appendix A: National Ecosystem Benefits Evaluation

32 Wetland/NEPA Impact Assessment

Appendix B: Real Estate Plan 18 Economics

Appendix C: Recreation Resources Assessment and Recreation Plan

29 All Disciplines

Appendix D: Cost Engineering 166 Economics

Appendix E: Adaptive Management Plan 39 Wetland/NEPA Impact Assessment

Appendix F: Monitoring Plan 18 Wetland/NEPA Impact Assessment

Appendix G: Engineering 293 Civil Engineer & Hydraulic Engineer

Appendix H: CMP ERP Environmental Impact Statement

208 All Disciplines

Essential Fish Habitat 57 Wetland/NEPA Impact Assessment

Biological Assessment 42 Wetland/NEPA Impact Assessment

404(b) (1) Evaluation 161 Wetland/NEPA Impact Assessment &

Hydraulic Engineer

CZMC 22 All Disciplines

Relevant Correspondence 47 All Disciplines

Total Page Count 1336

Documents for Reference

USACE guidance Civil Works Review, (EC 1165-2-214) dated 15 December 2012

Office of Management and Budget’s Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

released December 16, 2004.



SCHEDULE This final schedule is based on the October 10, 2013 receipt of the final review documents. The

schedule will be revised upon receipt of final review documents.


Conduct Peer Review

Battelle sends review documents to panel members 10/28/2013

Battelle convenes kick-off meeting with panel members 10/28/2013

Battelle provides ENLACE with IEPR Panel Mid-Review clarifying questions

11/6/2013

Battelle convenes mid-review teleconference for the IEPR Panel to ask clarifying questions of ENLACE

11/8/2013

IEPR: Prepare Final Panel

Comments and Model Review

Report

IEPR panel members complete their individual reviews 11/14/2013

Battelle provides panel members with merged individual comments talking points for Panel Review Teleconference

11/18/2013

Battelle convenes Panel Review Teleconference 11/19/2013

Battelle provides Final Panel Comment templates and instructions to panel members

11/20/2013

Panel members provide draft Final Panel Comments to Battelle

11/26/2013

Battelle provides feedback to panel members on draft Final Panel Comments; panel members revise Final Panel Comments

11/27-12/5/2013

Battelle finalizes Final Panel Comments 12/6/2013

Battelle provides Final IEPR Report to panel members for review

12/9/2013

Panel members provide comments on Final IEPR Report 12/10/2013

*Battelle submits Final IEPR Report to ENLACE 12/12/2013

Battelle convenes teleconference with ENLACE to review the Post-Final Panel Comment Response Process

12/13/2013

Battelle convenes teleconference with Panel to review the Post-Final Panel Comment Response Process

12/16/2013

IEPR: Comment/ Response Process

Battelle inputs Final Panel Comments into DrChecks; Battelle provides the panel members the draft Evaluator Responses

12/16/2013

ENLACE provides draft Evaluator Responses to Battelle 12/23/2013

Battelle provides the panel members the draft Evaluator Responses and clarifying questions

1/3/2014

Panel members provide Battelle with draft BackCheck Responses

1/9/2014

Battelle convenes teleconference with panel members to discuss draft BackCheck Responses

1/10/2014



SCHEDULE, continued


IEPR: Comment/ Response Process

Battelle convenes Comment-Response Teleconference with panel members and ENLACE

1/13/2014

ENLACE inputs final Evaluator Responses into DrChecks 1/17/2014

Battelle provides final Evaluator Responses to panel members

1/23/2014

Panel members provide Battelle with final BackCheck Responses

1/28/2014

Battelle inputs final BackCheck Responses into DrChecks 1/30/2014

*Battelle submits pdf printout of DrChecks project file to ENLACE

1/31/2014

CHARGE FOR PEER REVIEW

Members of this IEPR Panel are asked to determine whether the technical approach and

scientific rationale presented in the CMP-ERP documents are credible and whether the

conclusions are valid. The Panel is asked to determine whether the technical work is adequate,

competently performed, properly documented, satisfies established quality requirements, and

yields scientifically credible conclusions. The Panel is being asked to provide feedback on the

economic, engineering, environmental resources, and plan formulation. The panel members are

not being asked whether they would have conducted the work in a similar manner.

Specific questions for the Panel (by report section or appendix) are included in the general

charge guidance, which is provided below.

General Charge Guidance Please answer the scientific and technical questions listed below and conduct a broad overview

of the CMP-ERP documents. Please focus your review on the review materials assigned to your

discipline/area of expertise and technical knowledge. Even though there are some sections with

no questions associated with them, that does not mean that you cannot comment on them. Please

feel free to make any relevant and appropriate comment on any of the sections and appendices

you were asked to review. In addition, please note the following guidance. Note that the Panel

will be asked to provide an overall statement related to 2 and 3 below per USACE guidance (EC

1165-2-214; Appendix D).

1. Your response to the charge questions should not be limited to a “yes” or “no.” Please

provide complete answers to fully explain your response.

2. Assess the adequacy and acceptability of the economic and environmental assumptions

and projections, project evaluation data, and any biological opinions of the project study.

3. Assess the adequacy and acceptability of the economic analyses, environmental analyses,

engineering analyses, formulation of alternative plans, methods for integrating risk and



uncertainty, and models used in evaluating economic or environmental impacts of the

proposed project.

4. If appropriate, offer opinions as to whether there are sufficient analyses upon which to

base a recommendation.

5. Identify, explain, and comment upon assumptions that underlie all the analyses, as well as

evaluate the soundness of models, surveys, investigations, and methods.

6. Evaluate whether the interpretations of analysis and the conclusions based on analysis are

reasonable

7. Please focus the review on assumptions, data, methods, and models.

Please do not make recommendations on whether a particular alternative should be

implemented, or whether you would have conducted the work in a similar manner. Also please

do not comment on or make recommendations on policy issues and decision-making.

Comments should be provided based on your professional judgment, not the legality of the

document.

1. If desired, panel members can contact one another. However, panel members should not

contact anyone who is or was involved in the project, prepared the subject documents, or

was part of the USACE Agency Technical Review (ATR).

2. Please contact the Battelle Project Manager (Julian Digialleonardo, Digialleonar-

[email protected]) or Program Manager (Karen Johnson-Young (johnson-

[email protected]) for requests or additional information.

3. In case of media contact, notify the Battelle Program Manager, Karen Johnson-Young

([email protected]) immediately.

4. Your name will appear as one of the panel members in the peer review. Your comments

will be included in the Final IEPR Report, but will remain anonymous.

Please submit your comments in electronic form to Julian Digialleonardo,

[email protected] no later than November 14, 2013, 10 pm ET.

mailto:[email protected]








Independent External Peer Review of the

Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement

for the Caño Martín Peña Ecosystem Restoration Project, San Juan, Puerto Rico

Charge Questions and Relevant Sections as Supplied by ENLACE

General Questions

1. Based on your experience, are the recommendations comprehensive and adequate?

Are there sufficient analyses upon which to base the recommendation? What, if

anything, is missing?

2. Are the assumptions made for the planning, economic, engineering, and

environmental analyses sound?

3. Are the economic, engineering, and environmental methods, models, and analyses

used adequate, acceptable, and sufficient to support the recommended plan?

4. In general terms, are the planning methods sound?

5. Comment on whether there is enough detail in, and the accuracy of the project

background/history.

6. Please comment on whether the document has clearly and completely described both

the purpose of and the need for the proposed restoration.

7. Do you have any important concerns with the document or its appendices not

covered by other questions?

Plan Formulation

8. Do the Performance Measures adequately represent and characterize the intended

purpose and objectives of the proposed project? Is there any conflict between them?

9. Have an adequate number of alternatives been evaluated?

10. Are the problems, opportunities, objectives, and constraints adequately and correctly

defined?



11. Was a reasonably complete array of possible measures considered in the

development of alternatives? Were any measures screened out too early?

12. Please comment on the screening of the proposed alternative. Are the screening

criteria appropriate? Are the results of the screening acceptable?

13. Was the initial array of alternatives sufficient in number and focus to address all

practical solutions for the problems?

14. Comment on whether the information, analysis and formulation support the selected

alternative. Does the plan recommended meet the study objectives and avoid

violating the study constraints?

15. Please comment on the likelihood of the recommended plan achieving the expected

outputs.

Engineering

16. Is the Level of Design in the Engineering appendix adequate to access the

performance of the Recommended Plan?

17. Are all models’ capabilities and limitations clearly defined?

18. Were the technical assumptions used to determine the preferred alternative valid?

Cost

19. Was the methodology used to develop the baseline cost estimate adequate and valid?

20. Are the key assumptions used to complete the cost and schedule risk analysis

adequate? Is anything missing? In your expert opinion, do the major findings of the

cost risk analysis provide adequate support for scheduling, budgeting, and project

control purposes?

21. Comment on the extent to which the cost estimates are clearly explained, adequate,

and reasonable.

Environmental

22. Are the scope and detail of the potential adverse effects that may arise as a result of

project implementation sufficiently described and comprehensive?

23. Is the documentation of compliance with Federal laws and regulations clear and

complete?



24. Are the Cultural Resources adequately identified, well defined, and impacts

sufficiently documented?

25. Have all the concepts for the ecological integrity and restoration of the project area

been considered? What, if anything, is missing?

26. Comment on the environmental considerations of the project and the predicted

impacts. What, if anything, is missing?

27. Comment on the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the discussion of threatened

and endangered species in the study area.

28. Comment on the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the discussion of fish and

wildlife in the study area.

29. Comment on the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the discussion of water quality

in the study area.

Economic Analysis

30. Do you agree with the general analyses of the existing socio-economic resources in

the study area? What, if anything, is missing?

31. Was the methodology used to conduct the incremental cost analysis adequate and

valid?

Monitoring and AM

32. Are the proposed monitoring procedures clear and appropriate?

33. Is the proposed monitoring adequate to determine project success or adaptive

management needs?

34. Are the costs for administering a monitoring and assessment program reasonable?

35. Is adaptive management adequately addressed?

36. Are monitoring capabilities and limitations clearly defined?

Summary Questions

37. Please identify the most critical concerns (up to 5) you have with the project and/or

review documents. These concerns can be (but do not need to be) new ideas or issues

that have not been raised previously.

38. Please provide positive feedback on the project and/or review documents.